U mad hominem?

U mad hominem?

Pedantic argument retreats when confronted with logic that his bullshit suburban "realism" can't measure up against.

Probably referring to the "injuns".

Here's an on topic comment: "I find it interesting how badly you want to argue on the Internet, Internet man. Your actions are consistent with someone who feels empty inside due to their awareness at lack of achievement and is attempting to substitute achievement by forcing people into debates on your terms on the Internet"

Please let this be the end of you, clumsy powerless Internet man.

If you hadn't nitpicked on his offhand remark (that didn't necissarily have to make sense, nor be in the original context), there wouldn't be this entire thread worth of bullshit from either of you. Try and stay focused.

I never said he was wrong about protecting ourselves from police. I was correcting the statement about buckshot. From across the street buckshot will go right through your sorry ass. And a 30 caliber ball has more energy and in buckshot loads they are moving at maximum velocity. Not anywhere near firing a bunch of 22 shorts, which are loaded at minimum velocity. If your going to make claims about guns/ammunition I suggest reading up on the subject.

Like firing off 22 shorts? Mister, thats a load of bullshit. I would like to see you stand across the street while I fire one round of buckshot. If there is anything left of you it wont be breathing. Its called buckshot because it is used to hunt deer. And they are 30 caliber balls, not 22 shorts. Your last sentence is true, what you say is fiction. Ignorant people who get their information from movies and such think a sawed off shotgun scatters pellets far and wide, but anyone who has ever fired one knows that at 25 yards(across the street) the pellets only spread out about 4 to 6 inches.

This is an old interview, but it is still relevant today.

I think those folks would be useless anyway.

Rip Ernie C

This one of the comments I've read in a while

Character of the speaker? I don't think you know which Internet man you are arguing with, Internet man.

I'm not making accusations on anyone's character but yours, would-be voat thread security guard/ Internet man.

Your character, Internet man, is bland, flavorless, overlooked, under seasoned and generally boring.

I consider it charity to provide witty rapport on to your ho-hum, painfully politically correct, righteously indignant and generally not worth viewing comment history.

Internet man: you are welcome.

What a strange and hostile little Internet man.

There's nothing to debate. The facts are in: you're no fun, Internet man.

You really put the "anal" in "joy-killing pedantic technical analysis"

As an adamant 2nd Amendment defender I think the language is quite clear. It has nothing to do with the police or self-defense. It's about ensuring that our civilian population, that will comprise the "militia" of a citizen army, should have access to firearms ensuring the best possible riflemen to defend the nation.

I don't want an infantry with one week of weapons training. I want people that have been shooting their whole lives. The individual rifleman is a mighty, mighty weapon. And I want America to have the best riflemen in the world.

Technically, the efficiency of the tool depends on it's intended use.

A sawed off shotgun probably won't kill anyone in a drive by but it'll still do a lot of damage.

In war, injuries are often more burdensome to the enemy than fatalities. Though they call it gang-warfare, I doubt they have gang-medics, and I bet that the public hospitals recieve much of the burden of the injured.

So... Technically, a sawed off shotgun could do more damage in a drive by than a 7.62mm SAW, under conditions of warfare.

For urban violence under a functioning state though, John Henry has got a point. A sawed-off shotgun probably won't kill anybody in a driveby.

This sexy beast just got +10 in my Sexy Beast Book.

That all sailed waaaaay over your head.

Artist: body count Track: copkiller Album: there goes the neighborhood

That's why the argument that "you don't need that for hunting" is full of shit. The Second Amendment is expressly about killing people should the need arise, not about fucking hunting.

Well, not just the police. Enemies both foreign and domestic. But that could include police, true.

Celebrities know everything!

Where to begin... Fuck the police? Or full Conrad bringing it back to Ice's flick surviving the game?

If by hunting related things you mean a huge military that is trained to shoot on sight and doesn't care (obviously from any other mission they have done ) If they kill women, children, animals, wildlife, or any other living or useful thing we have on this planet. Sure! hunting related things.

I cant wait till plasma/laser based guns come out. They will also be protected with the 2nd.

Why is this in /v/conspiracy ? There isn't a shred of conspiracy in this. The 2nd amendment is absolutely about keeping government power in check. It never had anything to do with hunting.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't see anything about wildlife or sportsmanship there.

Without the 2nd amendment the 1st is worthless.

The founders knew what they were doing.

To protect yourself from being hunted.

I got my shotgun sawed off

I got my headlights turned off

Bout to bust some shots off

Gonna speak eloquently about constitutional guarantees to personal freedom.

Yeah Ice-T